___________

From the "the older I get the more I realize how much I don't know" files: Psychology Today reports the Dunning-Kruger effect may help explain Trump's support. It's worth noting that this phenomena is not limited to conservatives. Ignorant liberals are just as likely to believe they're the cat's pyjamas in lieu of alternative evidence. It's also worth noting that this phenomena strikes the less educated more often than the highly educated, and is thus more common among 45 supporters.

H/T Debbie the Librarian
________

As most of the geek-iverse is aware, Stan Lee shuffled off this mortal coil yesterday. He will be wildly missed by those who came of age with his art at their side, and also by those of us who began enjoying his imagination later in life. He was 95, which constitutes a good, long life, and I was unsurprised by the announcement of his death. He lost his wife of 69 years last year, and such an emotional blow often leads to health issues. Fair winds and following seas, Stan Lee. Your legacy lives on.
________

When I started seeing memes on Facebook about 45's cancellation of his visit to the Aisne-Marne American cemetery due to rain, at first I thought it was a case of overreaction. Surely, I thought, even the Asshat in Chief wouldn't be so crass as to skip this event on such an important anniversary.

Of course I was wrong - he is that crass and that soft. Apparently it's just too much to ask for him to be driven to an event in a limousine rather than riding there in Marine One. Disgraceful.
________

Disclaimer: No offense meant to those over 70. After all, my favorite government official is over 80. I just want candidates who have more flexible minds, and are able to offer fresh insight into our problems.

I am a veteran, a veteran's wife, a veteran's mother, a veteran's daughter, a veteran's granddaughter.

I've been in harm's way, and watched while those I loved were in harm's way.

I've served on land, and on sea, in the United States, and abroad.

I've worked to keep the sea lanes open around the world, and instructed the next generation of warrior sailors.

I've slept on the ground, in Navy ships, in barracks, and on cots.

I've seen regard for the military ebb and flow, depending on the politics of the moment. I've seen my brothers and sisters in arms used for political capital at the hands of the dishonorable, and I've seen the Armed Forces receive the highest level of respect from the population we protect.

And never, for one minute, have I regretted my service. It was my privilege to come of age in the warrior culture, and to serve alongside my brothers and sisters in arms. So today I salute my fellow veterans, my fellow sailors, my fellow warriors. Thank you for your service, and for serving with me.

Colorado Amendment 73 is entitled "Funding for Public Schools." This Amendment would enact a change to the Colorado Constitution, and so requires a "yes" vote of 55% to pass. According to the Secretary of State's office, it was placed on the ballot by citizen petition.

The gist of this Amendment is desire to increase funding for public schools by raising the individual income tax rate for filers who make more than $150,000 a year, increasing the corporate income tax rate, and increasing property tax on residential properties.

Based on my research, it appears that this Amendment is split along party lines (shocking, I know). The Think of the Children liberals want this to pass. The no-tax, voucher-loving conservatives do not.

This makes perfect sense to me. Teachers, people who live in areas where schools are underfunded, and bleeding heart liberals who think public education is the heart of American democracy want this to pass so there's more money funneling into public education state-wide. Their arguments boil down to the contention that people with more money should bear the brunt of fixing the situation.

Libertarians, "no new taxes" adherents, and school voucher supporters want this to fail so their taxes don't go up and so they can make a case for using public monies to pay for their kids' private educations. Their arguments boil down to taxes = bad, and the infamous "do more with less" trope.

So this is the quintessential conflict in values between the haves and the have-nots.

Here are some things to consider when making your decision on this issue:

Over half of Colorado School Districts are operating on a four day week because they can't afford a five day week.

In the last eight years education funding has been cut by $7.2 billion.

An increase in business, property, and income taxes may have a negative impact on Colorado's economy.

The state legislature will not have the power to redirect money earmarked for education to other uses.

So this is primarily a question of the redistribution of wealth to fund public education.

No On 110. Yes on 109 (I can't find a link to this organization, and TRACER reports they're delinquent in filing their required donation and expenditure report.)

The following groups are opposed to Amendment 109:

State Ballot Issue Committee (This appears to be a small anti-tax organization out of Colorado Springs. TRACER reports they're against everything but Amendment A and Amendment 74)

Coloradans For Coloradans (I can't find a link to this organization, but in the past, it appears the majority of their contributions have come from sources outside of Colorado. Additionally, TRACER reports contributors are companies and associations associated with the building industry.)

Coloradans for a Responsible Future (I can't find a link to this organization, but according to TRACER, their contributors are companies and associations associated with the building industry.)

The following groups are in favor of Amendment 110:

Coloradans For Coloradans (I can't find a link to this organization, but in the past, it appears
the majority of their contributions have come from sources outside of
Colorado. Additionally, TRACER reports contributors are companies and associations associated with the building industry.)

Coloradans for a Responsible Future (I can't find a link to this organization, but according to TRACER, their contributors are companies and associations associated with the building industry.)

The following groups are opposed to Amendment 110:

State Ballot Issue Committee (This appears to be a small anti-tax (libertarian?) organization out of Colorado
Springs. TRACER reports they're against everything but Amendment A and Amendment 74)

No On 110. Yes on 109 (I can't find a link to this organization, and TRACER reports they're delinquent in filing their required donation and expenditure report.)

Here's the gist:

If Amendment 109 passes, the state could borrow $3.5 billion by selling transportation revenue bonds for highway projects. These would be repaid within 20 years, using existing state revenue sources.

If Amendment 110 passes, state officials would increase
Colorado’s sales and use tax from 2.9 percent to 3.52 percent for 20
years in order to borrow up to $6 billion.

So the long and the short of it is:

If you want to fund transportation initiatives by borrowing money against bonds, vote "yes" on 109, and "no" on 110.

If you want to fund transportation initiatives by increasing the sales tax, vote "no" on 109, and "yes" on 110.

If you want a third solution, or you don't want any additional monies to be earmarked for transportation projects, vote "no" on 109, and "no" on 110.

If you want both solutions to be enacted, vote "yes" on 109, and "yes" on 110.

Here are the points I considered when making my decision:

Proposition 109 borrows money; 110 raises taxes to obtain the money.

The tax increase in Proposition 110 is a sales tax, which disproportionately affects the poor.

Proposition 110 is using money for multi-modal (bicycles and mass transit) transportation, 109 is not.

Following the money was tougher on this one. I had to research each agent in Tracer and then look up the committee's contribution and expenditure reports. The fact that the committees apparently took pains to hide their involvement (except where forced into transparency by Colorado SoS rules) makes me side-eye the lot of them.

Colorado Amendments Y & Z are entitled "Congressional Redistricting" and "Legislative Redistricting," respectively. The purpose of these Amendments are basically the same, and so it most of the language, so I'm going to lump them together for the purposes of this edition of "Follow the Money."

These are Amendments to the Colorado Constitution, and according to the Secretary of State's office, both were unanimously referred to the voters by the state legislature.

The gist of both Amendments is to prevent gerrymandering in Colorado, and provide a more bipartisan process for redistricting after the census.

This group has not reported any moneys raised or spent, and (in my opinion) also seem a little fringe.

Note: "Follow the Money" values collected from the Colorado Secretary of State's TRACER system. This system contains public disclosures for campaign finance in Colorado.

What happens today is that once the census data arrives from federal government, the state legislature attempts to put a legislative map together, drawing district lines for representation in the State House. If If they can't agree, or if someone's not satisfied, then a legal challenge is issued, and the court ends up drawing the lines. The legal challenge has occurred the last four times a census has been conducted. Both sides accuse the other of gerrymandering (and both are correct).

In the case of the Federal Congressional Districts, today an 11 member Colorado Reapportionment Commission is formed after the census. These individuals are appointed by the three branches of state government, with as many as six people from a single political party. Once they draw the maps and they hold public hearings, then send the map to the Colorado Supreme Court for approval.

The new system would involve replacing both of these processes with 2 new commissions. The Commissions would have 12 members, 4 from the state's largest political party, 4 from the state's second largest political party, and 4 people who are unaffiliated. (For your information, the "unaffiliated" are the largest group of registered voters in Colorado, including yours truly.) The appointment process is supposed to be bi-partisan, is somewhat convoluted, and relies in part on random chance.

Once the Commissions are formed, they put together new maps, hold public hearings, and then vote. The new maps must pass by a super-majority of 8 "yes" votes, with at least 2 unaffiliated commissioners voting yes. Then it goes to the Colorado Supreme Court for approval.

I'm of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, I look at the legislation, and I say "Hurrah! Transparency in government!" On the other, I wonder why there's so much bipartisan support for this. Is the fix already in? What's the catch? My public servants have taught me to suspect skullduggery and shenanigans at all times, so I have trouble believing their sincerity. Imagine that.

Check this one over carefully, fellow voters. It's complicated, and requires some study to fully understand the proposed new process.

The main contributors on the "in favor" side of the house come from granola crunching hippies, and by "granola crunching hippies," I mean "people who don't think water should be flammable." Theirs is a grass roots initiative.

Most of the politicians who have taken a position on this measure are against it. Again, understandable, since no one wants to be the guy who's on the wrong side of the energy industry when it's time for reelection.

As with most political contests, the fear mongering, exaggeration, and downright liar, liar, pants on fire rhetoric is everywhere. Those opposed claim it will have serious and long-term economic repercussions. Those in favor say these claims are grossly exaggerated, and that fracking and other extraction technologies cause serious short and long-term health problems. I'm not going to recap the research here because I have a job, so you'll need to read the claims on your own to determine the actual facts. But here are some things to consider when forming your own opinion:

About Me

I am a Hot Chick living in Castle Rock, CO with my fabulous family. We have a rescue dog named "Jackson," and she's a Basenji/Shepherd mix. She's something of a head case, but we love her. I'm a U.S. Navy vet, and I currently work as an Enterprise Solutions Architect, specializing in VoIP and multimedia contact center design. I care about social justice, libraries, science, the U.S. Constitution and the military. I serve as a Director on our local library's Foundation Board. I'm a tax and spend liberal in a largely red county, but I try not to be stabby about it. I aspire to run faster than I do, and I donate knitted cold weather gear to various charities. Stupidity, cupidity and wanton assholery piss me off, and I'm more than a little soft when it comes to dogs and those who serve others. I blog about whatever I feel like. I use foul language, so if that sort of thing offends you, feel free to fuck off now - if I'm unwilling to clean up my language for my fabulous Great Auntie Margie, I'm unlikely to do so for you. Newcomers are welcome here, especially those who disagree with me, but trolling and spamming will be met with the Shovel of Doom™.